This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

It doesn't produce Coins but draws.I agree that it seems weak but like Shepherd it could be great "support draw", i.e. when you have something else in your deck that draws this might be pretty decent.

This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

It doesn't produce Coins but draws.I agree that it seems weak but like Shepherd it could be great "support draw", i.e. when you have something else in your deck that draws this might be pretty decent.

Oh wow, sorry, I completely misread it, then. That's quite a bit better, but on the other hand I wonder wether a deck that's as full with Silver wouldn't be better off with a terminal draw card like e.g. Smithy. Of course you can also use it in an engine deck, but if your engine can reliably draw this and at least two Silvers, it's probably going fairly smoothly anyhow. So now that you win, you win more, and before, it does very little to get you there (mainly hoping for lucky draws).

I like making cards that are likely broken, it seems. Get +$2 for every one of your turns, but can your engine survive the silver gains? Seems pretty good for Big Money, especially in helping it not stall out in the endgame.

I currently imagine mail-mi wearing a dark trenchcoat and a bowler hat, hunched over a bit, toothpick in his mouth, holding a gun in his pocket. One bead of sweat trickling down his nose.

'And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise." - Moroni 7:41, the Book of Mormon

This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

It doesn't produce Coins but draws.I agree that it seems weak but like Shepherd it could be great "support draw", i.e. when you have something else in your deck that draws this might be pretty decent.

Oh wow, sorry, I completely misread it, then. That's quite a bit better, but on the other hand I wonder wether a deck that's as full with Silver wouldn't be better off with a terminal draw card like e.g. Smithy. Of course you can also use it in an engine deck, but if your engine can reliably draw this and at least two Silvers, it's probably going fairly smoothly anyhow. So now that you win, you win more, and before, it does very little to get you there (mainly hoping for lucky draws).

With this amount of delicate balance it makes quite an interesting card, without being that strong. Thinking about dropping it to 3?

I also tried to create a 1$ card that involves Silver. Not sure if it is weak enough...

I think the card is fine, but it does not need to cost $1. There are two cases where you buy it: In the opening for trashing (where you'll have at least $2), or mid-late game for extra buys, where - if you are going to need extra buys, you probably have more to spend than $1. I think the card is fine, but it costs $1 just for the sake of costing $1.

I also tried to create a $1 card that involves Silver. Not sure if it is weak enough...

I think the card is fine, but it does not need to cost $1. There are two cases where you buy it: In the opening for trashing (where you'll have at least $2), or mid-late game for extra buys, where - if you are going to need extra buys, you probably have more to spend than $1. I think the card is fine, but it costs $1 just for the sake of costing $1.

You are right. It probably works the same at $2. So just pricing it at $1 for the sake of being special is rather pointless.Kept the card as it is and only rised the price.

I think Harbor might be a good name for this one. Its power level seems fine to me, although you could add a setup rule that causes a number of Silvers equal to the player count to start in the trash just to speed it up a little.

Without a cost reducer, Seer cannot draw other Seers, Gold or Provinces (Fun Fact: Scout can do this), but Magnets can draw them all, including other Magnets. With support by Artificer, Secret Passage, City Gate, Mandarin, Count, The Moon’s Gift, Buerocrat, Taxman or Courtyard, it allows very strong engines.

Without a cost reducer, Seer cannot draw other Seers, Gold or Provinces (Fun Fact: Scout can do this), but Magnets can draw them all, including other Magnets. With support by Artificer, Secret Passage, City Gate, Mandarin, Count, The Moon’s Gift, Buerocrat, Taxman or Courtyard, it allows very strong engines.

Seer gives +1 card so it can certainly draw those cards. Magnets needs a Silver within the top 3 cards which is pretty difficult to have consistently so I imagine it draws fewer cards than Seer on average.

It's a budget Smithy. It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It's a budget Smithy. It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.